4 ms·

"All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked." – Goering, at the Nuremberg trials, on how to control a population There were 372 mass shootings

"All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked." – Goering, at the Nuremberg trials, on how to control a population There were 372 mass shootings in the US in 2015, killing 475 people and wounding 1,870, according to the Mass Shooting Tracker, which catalogues such incidents. A mass shooting is defined as a single shooting incident which kills or injures four or more people, including the assailant. The National Safety Council says it currently estimates that last year, "38,300 people were killed on U.S. roads, and 4.4 million were seriously injured. This means that in 2015, cars killed 20x more people than mass shootings. If all life is equal than why is there no outcry against laws that prohibit Tesla and other self deriving vehicles?

hfourm 10y ago
There was tons of legislation since the 70s to make roads safer. Seatbelt laws, manufacturer requirements, etc. So yea.. It is pretty consistent with the outcry for more responsible gun control laws. The main problem is no one can communicate about it intelligently and it results in a bunch of chest beating on either side.
- mordocai 10y ago
  What would be the equivalent of seat belts etc for guns? Certainly not banning barrel shrouds and other things that make guns "look scary" nor limiting what types of guns can be bought, which is what a lot of the gun control side argues for. I'm not sure this analogy can go very far, unfortuantely.
  - Glyptodon 10y ago
    Indeed. Or guns would be required to come with suppressors to protect people's ears. But instead that's a class III stamp.
- Zikes 10y ago
  The two viewpoints are completely opposed, and there is no reasonable compromise. One side says that guns designed with the obvious and explicit goal of effectively killing numerous people should be banned so that they cannot be misused. The other side says that guns designed with the obvious and explicit goal of effectively killing numerous people are necessary, in keeping with the Constitutional amendment which was drafted to ensure that if it ever became necessary the American citizens would once again have the means to cast off their oppressors and begin anew.
  - ythl 10y ago
    > The other side says that guns designed with the obvious and explicit goal of effectively killing numerous people are necessary, in keeping with the Constitutional amendment which was drafted to ensure that if it ever became necessary the American citizens would once again have the means to cast off their oppressors and begin anew. Cue the progressives who claim this was not the original intent of the 2nd amendment, guns would be of no use in a revolution because the military is so crushingly powerful, etc.
mafro 10y ago
Because many people need a car to function (get to work, shops, take kids to school). Nobody needs a gun to function.
- privong 10y ago
  > Because many people need a car to function (get to work, shops, take kids to school). I'm not sure that's a compelling argument. One could easily counter that people could move to be closer to work and/or school. Cars are "needed" because of the life choices people make. > Nobody needs a gun to function. If we apply consistent logic, there are people who need guns to function just as much as others need cars. Folks who live in the wilderness of Alaska and make a substantial living off the land need guns to hunt animals and acquire food. Sure they could hunt with a bow, but people could also get to work on bicycles.
  - elthran 10y ago
    The Alaska/hunting point is a good one - I fully agree here. I think what a lot of people disagree with is the laws allowing possession of an AR-15 assault rifle and it's kin
    - ythl 10y ago
      > I think what a lot of people disagree with is the laws allowing possession of an AR-15 assault rifle What's the difference between an AR-15 "assault rifle" (whatever that means) and a hunting rifle used in Alaska? Likely nothing. They probably have the exact same ammo, capabilities, and the differences are purely cosmetic.
  - lordnacho 10y ago
    Even people who NEED a car have to be licensed to operate one, and there are consequences if you use one without. Perhaps people should be licensed to have guns as well? There's also a lot of studies into car safety. Perhaps it would make sense to spend some money studying gun safety, as well?
ohthehugemanate 10y ago
For starters, because driving IS regulated and licensed. I agree that there should be stronger licensing requirements, but no one is arguing for "no drivers licensing at all."
overcast 10y ago
The difference here is that guns are created for one purpose, killing another person. People aren't buying up cars with the intent of killing others.
- privong 10y ago
  > The difference here is that guns are created for one purpose, killing another person. Or hunting, or target shooting.
  - overcast 10y ago
    So killing 'something'. I'm not even going to entertain target shooting as a valid reason for the existence of guns.
conanbatt 10y ago
There is a categorical difference in how a person could die because he crashes his own car into a tree and another one shooting at other people. Car deaths are terrible, and many are involuntary (someone killing someone else), but many are self inflicted and the driver is reasonably assuming that risk. The risk of walking out of your home and getting shot by a lunatic is an unmitigated externality. Its not a risk for a person to assume.
- clarkmoody 10y ago
  > The risk of walking out of your home and getting shot by a lunatic is an unmitigated externality. True, but also way less likely than getting killed by some lunatic looking at their phone while driving. Hence the disconnect in the media's treatment of gun deaths vs auto deaths.
la6470 10y ago
i can see the others have answers it. Yes guns are not needed for daily activities and secondly they are way more dangerous i.e. Fatal than cars. Cars are not built to kill but guns are built to kill. I hope I am able to communicate a very basic difference.
lmm 10y ago
What's the economic value we derive from cars each year, vs the same number for guns? (Total sales would be a reasonable proxy). What's the ratio of that to deaths?
CocaKoala 10y ago
Because when one car crashes into another and a family of four dies, the odds are likely it was an accident. It's a tragedy, certainly, but you rarely read news articles about a crazed maniac who got into his car with the express purpose of running down pedestrians. When a gunman takes a gun into a public area and starts shooting people, that's not an accident. It might be a failure of mental health, but it was also a deliberate choice.
- Glyptodon 10y ago
  You mean it's likely a drunk murdered them. Drunk driving is as unforgivable as shooting innocents.
- ythl 10y ago
  In my mind, DUI "accidents" are not actually accidents. Someone deliberately made a choice to drive under the influence of drugs, and that choice is tantamount to murder in my mind.
Glyptodon 10y ago
The 4 person including assailant definition for a "mass shooting" has always seemed cherry picked to include the "depressed guy kills wife and kids scenario" even though the term brings to mind some sort of broadly antagonistic attack on the public at large. It's a propaganda effort designed to lend credence to the idea that gun control can somehow be effective. It caught on because the media at large seemingly despise guns and are are loath to acknowledge that anyone cam make one in their garage, let alone that none of the millions of current gun owners are at all likely to ever give them up.
dionidium 10y ago
All lives are equal, but all fears aren't. Since we pass laws for the benefit of humans, it is fitting and proper to consider what they fear in the cost assessment. The ultra-rational approach you describe might appeal to the HN crowd, but there's nothing wrong with noticing what kinds of laws make us feel safer and preferring them. Fear affects lives. Fear matters. Why wouldn't it?
kens 10y ago
Why don't people worry about cars as much as they should? There's a lot of research on how people perceive risks [1]. People are much more afraid of risks that are imposed externally (e.g. getting randomly shot) vs voluntary (driving). Catastrophic things (plane crashes) are feared more than chronic risks (car crashes). Control vs no control makes people less afraid of car crashes (since they are nominally in control). Risk vs benefit makes people less fearful of cars (since they benefit). Uncertainty makes people fear nuclear power and GMOs. [1] Slovic's "Perception of Risk", 1987 is the fundamental risk perception paper: http://heatherlench.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/slovic.pdf http://heatherlench.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/slovic.pd... For a nice list of factors, see http://niemanreports.org/articles/understanding-factors-of-risk-perception/ http://niemanreports.org/articles/understanding-factors-of-r...

hfourm 10y ago

There was tons of legislation since the 70s to make roads safer. Seatbelt laws, manufacturer requirements, etc. So yea.. It is pretty consistent with the outcry for more responsible gun control laws. The main problem is no one can communicate about it intelligently and it results in a bunch of chest beating on either side.

mordocai 10y ago
What would be the equivalent of seat belts etc for guns? Certainly not banning barrel shrouds and other things that make guns "look scary" nor limiting what types of guns can be bought, which is what a lot of the gun control side argues for. I'm not sure this analogy can go very far, unfortuantely.
- Glyptodon 10y ago
  Indeed. Or guns would be required to come with suppressors to protect people's ears. But instead that's a class III stamp.
Zikes 10y ago
The two viewpoints are completely opposed, and there is no reasonable compromise. One side says that guns designed with the obvious and explicit goal of effectively killing numerous people should be banned so that they cannot be misused. The other side says that guns designed with the obvious and explicit goal of effectively killing numerous people are necessary, in keeping with the Constitutional amendment which was drafted to ensure that if it ever became necessary the American citizens would once again have the means to cast off their oppressors and begin anew.
- ythl 10y ago
  > The other side says that guns designed with the obvious and explicit goal of effectively killing numerous people are necessary, in keeping with the Constitutional amendment which was drafted to ensure that if it ever became necessary the American citizens would once again have the means to cast off their oppressors and begin anew. Cue the progressives who claim this was not the original intent of the 2nd amendment, guns would be of no use in a revolution because the military is so crushingly powerful, etc.

mafro 10y ago

Because many people need a car to function (get to work, shops, take kids to school). Nobody needs a gun to function.

privong 10y ago
> Because many people need a car to function (get to work, shops, take kids to school). I'm not sure that's a compelling argument. One could easily counter that people could move to be closer to work and/or school. Cars are "needed" because of the life choices people make. > Nobody needs a gun to function. If we apply consistent logic, there are people who need guns to function just as much as others need cars. Folks who live in the wilderness of Alaska and make a substantial living off the land need guns to hunt animals and acquire food. Sure they could hunt with a bow, but people could also get to work on bicycles.
- elthran 10y ago
  The Alaska/hunting point is a good one - I fully agree here. I think what a lot of people disagree with is the laws allowing possession of an AR-15 assault rifle and it's kin
  - ythl 10y ago
    > I think what a lot of people disagree with is the laws allowing possession of an AR-15 assault rifle What's the difference between an AR-15 "assault rifle" (whatever that means) and a hunting rifle used in Alaska? Likely nothing. They probably have the exact same ammo, capabilities, and the differences are purely cosmetic.
- lordnacho 10y ago
  Even people who NEED a car have to be licensed to operate one, and there are consequences if you use one without. Perhaps people should be licensed to have guns as well? There's also a lot of studies into car safety. Perhaps it would make sense to spend some money studying gun safety, as well?

ohthehugemanate 10y ago

For starters, because driving IS regulated and licensed. I agree that there should be stronger licensing requirements, but no one is arguing for "no drivers licensing at all."

overcast 10y ago

The difference here is that guns are created for one purpose, killing another person. People aren't buying up cars with the intent of killing others.

privong 10y ago
> The difference here is that guns are created for one purpose, killing another person. Or hunting, or target shooting.
- overcast 10y ago
  So killing 'something'. I'm not even going to entertain target shooting as a valid reason for the existence of guns.

conanbatt 10y ago

There is a categorical difference in how a person could die because he crashes his own car into a tree and another one shooting at other people. Car deaths are terrible, and many are involuntary (someone killing someone else), but many are self inflicted and the driver is reasonably assuming that risk. The risk of walking out of your home and getting shot by a lunatic is an unmitigated externality. Its not a risk for a person to assume.

clarkmoody 10y ago
> The risk of walking out of your home and getting shot by a lunatic is an unmitigated externality. True, but also way less likely than getting killed by some lunatic looking at their phone while driving. Hence the disconnect in the media's treatment of gun deaths vs auto deaths.

la6470 10y ago

i can see the others have answers it. Yes guns are not needed for daily activities and secondly they are way more dangerous i.e. Fatal than cars. Cars are not built to kill but guns are built to kill. I hope I am able to communicate a very basic difference.

lmm 10y ago

What's the economic value we derive from cars each year, vs the same number for guns? (Total sales would be a reasonable proxy). What's the ratio of that to deaths?

CocaKoala 10y ago

Because when one car crashes into another and a family of four dies, the odds are likely it was an accident. It's a tragedy, certainly, but you rarely read news articles about a crazed maniac who got into his car with the express purpose of running down pedestrians. When a gunman takes a gun into a public area and starts shooting people, that's not an accident. It might be a failure of mental health, but it was also a deliberate choice.

Glyptodon 10y ago
You mean it's likely a drunk murdered them. Drunk driving is as unforgivable as shooting innocents.
ythl 10y ago
In my mind, DUI "accidents" are not actually accidents. Someone deliberately made a choice to drive under the influence of drugs, and that choice is tantamount to murder in my mind.

Glyptodon 10y ago

The 4 person including assailant definition for a "mass shooting" has always seemed cherry picked to include the "depressed guy kills wife and kids scenario" even though the term brings to mind some sort of broadly antagonistic attack on the public at large. It's a propaganda effort designed to lend credence to the idea that gun control can somehow be effective. It caught on because the media at large seemingly despise guns and are are loath to acknowledge that anyone cam make one in their garage, let alone that none of the millions of current gun owners are at all likely to ever give them up.

dionidium 10y ago

All lives are equal, but all fears aren't. Since we pass laws for the benefit of humans, it is fitting and proper to consider what they fear in the cost assessment. The ultra-rational approach you describe might appeal to the HN crowd, but there's nothing wrong with noticing what kinds of laws make us feel safer and preferring them. Fear affects lives. Fear matters. Why wouldn't it?

kens 10y ago

Why don't people worry about cars as much as they should? There's a lot of research on how people perceive risks [1]. People are much more afraid of risks that are imposed externally (e.g. getting randomly shot) vs voluntary (driving). Catastrophic things (plane crashes) are feared more than chronic risks (car crashes). Control vs no control makes people less afraid of car crashes (since they are nominally in control). Risk vs benefit makes people less fearful of cars (since they benefit). Uncertainty makes people fear nuclear power and GMOs. [1] Slovic's "Perception of Risk", 1987 is the fundamental risk perception paper: http://heatherlench.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/slovic.pdf http://heatherlench.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/slovic.pd... For a nice list of factors, see http://niemanreports.org/articles/understanding-factors-of-risk-perception/ http://niemanreports.org/articles/understanding-factors-of-r...